Replying to Avatar HoloKat

It is

Then we should have a nostr based DNS πŸ˜‚ much better than Twitter Blue

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

I think it was saylor who proposed bitcoin deposits for an orange badge and if you misbehave you lose it.

I kind like this idea. Just need to work out the technical details.

Maybe combine it with some other form of verification. And make the cost not trivial.

Pay $50 worth of sats and must be oked by 3 verified people. Or 10 unverified + payment. Just an idea ..

But then.. who are you paying? πŸ˜†

And terminal cancer sets in when autoimmune deficient.

Good morning.

Sounds like the solution is staking… oh, no, what have I just fucking typed

imo verification can’t be achieved. A better model is NIP-05 for early sharing identifiers, combined with web of trust via who follows whom. True verification is trusting a centralized service that has checked someone’s state issued ID.

Easily sharing*

Aggregated trustworthiness is something I am super curious about. Could anyone point me towards info on how this could be tackled? I found some theoretical papers but not that much on implementations.

There was a verified human initiative but they verified me as a cat… not sure if I can trust that.

🀣🀣🀣 they get to decide, not you

Yah but I could have been a long term scammer…

You could still very well be… πŸ€” is this « look this is my faceΒ Β» act just part of the long con

Exactly. You never know, I could be the bad guy.

When there is in writing that we shouldn’t but at best learn?!

I’m afraid arguing she was dressed slutty to rape in the shower is weak excuse when not supposed to be in the shower, no?!

Guess the corrupt and stereotyping see that as a time to go rape and piling.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kDERlmd2NS4

Building the traps.

Us non dev plebs are fucked… Assessing trustworthiness is a bitch. Offline, online. The only way I know how to deal with it is to pretend to be stupid and naive and see if ppl try to take advantage of it.

… problem is, I am often truly stupid and naive.

Anyone of prominence who cares about this should have their own domain one would think.

I do not disagree. We can make it easier for sure, but people need to learn to take domain names seriously πŸ€·β€β™‚οΈ

Domain names won’t stop scammers anyway. It’s trivial to get one if you really wanted to rip people off.

But it’s also easy to remember and easier to verify what domain name someone noteworthy is actually using?

We can make it easier definitely but We can’t protect everyone.

I knew it!

More in the way of looking at interaction between users, diversity of network, frequency, duration of formed links (especially this last one). Easier said than done… would probably be easier to apply in a commercial context.

Trust is a link maintained over time. There must be ways of looking at this that could provide meaningful insight.

(I got attracted by the concept of decentralized academic accreditation. It would mostly rely on multiple streams of human feedback, assessing the trustworthiness of the human giving the feedback is key and rather problematic)

https://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/3731/3132

This one was intriguing, on models for aggregated trustworthiness.

Yeah it seems better suited to centralized systems

Very interesting debate. I think it could be the start of a real authentication NIP on nostr.

I really think domain names give a decent verification(proof you paid) while still preserving pseudonymity.

Current implementation definitely doesn’t work though

Like a WoT solution ?

Who makes me lose it? πŸ€” but I like the idea, essentially we can pay for other peoples verification as well , which sounds much more genuine

Something has to be done on the game theory side of things for Nostr. When people risk to lose something or not gain something they act differently. How to keep everyone on best behavior?

Sounds like a hierarchical kinda faggy let me know what you like in yer butt kinda thang.

No one tells me how to behave.

Misbehave meaning scams..

It's time everyone grows up then. Safety for the misinformed always leads to less freedom for the real people.

It’s not about misinformed or informed. There are real people at risk through no fault of their own that require looking out for.

How are they at risk?

Lower cognitive function. But even before that you’ll have people clicking phishing links even if they are tech literate.

Really? Then what does all scams mean but social rapist?

That’s just proof of payment tho

Why are you attempting to nerf the only thing that can save you? Sus.